The social action approach, argues that individuals experience the social world by interpreting their actions and interactions with others and the meaning they assign to social phenomena. The starting point for understanding society should be the individual as they are authors of their own ideas. Emphasis should be given to how shared meanings develop and how these influence the way individuals define, act and react to their environment. Opposing the social action approach are the structural theories. Structural theories such as functionalism and Marxism are macro (large scale), and deterministic: they see society as a real thing existing over and above us, shaping our ideas and behaviour – individuals are like puppets, manipulated by society.
Zinn also uses an excerpt from historian Charles Beard to explain his reasoning. Beard basically said that the rich controls the government or the laws the government operates by. Zinn points out that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights shows that quality of interest hides behind innocence. Meaning that Congress completely ignores the freedom of speech. Professor of history Gordon S. Wood views the struggle for a new constitution in 1787-1788 as a social conflict between upper-class Federalists who desired a stronger central government and the “humbler” Anti-Federalists who controlled the state assemblies.
I believe the Constitution did a better job of protecting liberties, specifically in the areas of the federal court system, representation of the people, and the levy of taxes. Alexander Hamilton, statesman and economist, proclaimed "Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation”. The Articles of Confederation which gave rise to the Confederation government that took effect in March 1781, did not give the national government any means to enforce the federal laws. The states could, and often did, choose to interpret or enforce federal laws in any manner they saw fit. This led to disputes amongst the states that could not be readily settled, as it relied on each state’s court system which invariably chose to discount the ruling of the other states.
Amusing Ourselves to Death In the novel Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman analyzes the undeniable truth that the media, and its mediums, have caused a major cultural revolution. This dynamic shift from an age of the printed word, to that of the television, has created an epistemological transition that has led to the redefinition of the content and meaning of public discourse. The argument proposed by Neil Postman stems from the idea in which the entertainment power of images has caused the truth of these messages to be degraded and misinterpreted. Postman (1985) writes “we do not measure a culture by its output of undisguised trivialities but by what it claims as significant” (p. 16). Here Postman argues that televisions’ trivial nature
Pluralists believe that the mass media is reflective of social reality, and acts as a 'mirror'. They state that it has a functional role in meeting the demands of its mass audience, and thus owes a duty to the people. Marxists on the other hand would argue that the media constructs desires and creates social reality. In other words it is a sculptor of a worldview and distorts social reality which is based on exploitation of a powerless majority, thus it is an ideological tool of the powerful bourgeoisie and reflects their interests. Over eighty percent of the media is owned by Trans National Corporations.
Each social control has distinct differences. One difference being that ideological social control is used in order to manipulate the way we perceive things while direct social control punishes those who violate norms. In chapter six of In Conflict and Order, the authors, Eitzen and Zinn state that media shapes how we evaluate ourselves and other people. Moreover, they state that media is used to affect the viewers or readers directly into perceiving and interpreting events. Furthermore, media has an enormous amount of power to influence or question the system (pg.
“The Right to Bear Arms and Popular Sovereignty,” article is by Charles C Cooke. In this article he is talking about the importance of British tradition that was the right to bear arms which is an essential right in any free society. But however most countries have removed this right, Cooke believes that the United States should take action to keep this right in process. This article was published in National Review and Cooke being the writer at National Review. Who graduate from the University of Oxford where he studied modern history and politics.
Many intellectuals during the Enlightenment explored new ideas in political economy; Adam Smith in his 1776 An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations was one of the most influential figures for the Americans. Smith admitted the mercantile system worked, yet criticized its principles. Expounding a doctrine of individualism, Smith was one of many voices stating that the economy, like the individual, should be free from detailed regulation from the state. Economic, as well as individual, self-interest and its outcome in the market should be allowed to function without state regulation. Although it was indeed approved by the First Continental Congress, the practice of mercantilism was replaced with a Smith-oriented form of liberalism in post-Revolutionary
Chafe, Alice Mary Baldwin Professor of History and former Dean of the Faculty at Duke University, admits that he has built his impressive scholarly career by neglecting these dramas to shape what is now the accepted historical conventional wisdom. In books such as "Civilities and Civil Rights" and "The American Woman," he writes, "I have focused on the way social movements, not individuals, have transformed our recent past." Now, Chafe wishes to right the balance, beginning with what he calls "an old-fashioned conviction -- that individual leaders make a difference in a society." The result is insightful and significant, showing how the personal and the psychological shape the political and historical. In eight well-paced, well-written chapters, Chafe sketches portraits of 10 influential modern Americans: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr., John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the Clintons, Hillary and Bill.
In some respects, this revision follows the lead of historian William Appleman Williams who developed the notion of an American informal empire, growing out of nineteenth-century "Manifest Destiny," aggressive protection of free trade and open markets, and finally, into direct confrontation with the old empires of Europe in the twentieth century. [1] Bender's view is slightly different, emphasizing the very long history of American engagement with European Empires--the successful American Revolution was, after all, partly a consequence of the enmity of France and Britain. As Bender concludes: the "American way of empire was even presented as anti-imperialism because it guaranteed openness, in contrast to the exclusivity of the old empires" (p. 233). This statement is an important argument because it links the visionary perspectives of Thomas Jefferson, for example, to the much later engagement of the United States with European colonial empires. It also illustrates an essential point, which is the moral center of the work.